And his judgement was wrong - he didn't need to restrain him while armed police officers shot him 7 times in the head. That is 100% incontrovertible "fact"; a somewhat more reliable one than his current justifications two years after the event.
Are you denying that JCDM was a tube passenger and not a terrorist? If so, I suggest you contact the police, who I'm sure will only be to happy to hear about this new development in the case.
If not, I think you make yourself look more than a little foolish wanting to argue about the "facts" when they are so clearly against you.
[In other words, it's actually perfectly reasonable to argue that the police had to make a hard decision in difficult circumstances, when they had reason to suspect JCDM was a terrorist. But when you start arguing that in "fact" he wasn't actually a tube passenger, he was a terrorist, you lose any credibility you might have had].
What I find nearly as interesting about the case is the way that this Forum reacts to the 'facts' that are presented. Like most issues of this nature, most of us privately acknowledge that we'll never get the true facts.
The Police, true to form, will cover up and the newspapers will fabricate so many guesses and fabrications is that the Truth is much a victim as Messr Menezes. YET, the Forum members, who are by all accounts above the national average of intelligence, still manage to find enough meat to argue vociferously. If this is what intelligent debate is like, imagine the debates been held in the pubs across the country. Is it any wonder that there is such a level of uncertainty and mistrust across the country.
I recall the day it all happened. I think it was ESG or S38 who posted the rumour about some innocent bystander being killed by Police. I remember one Forumite in particular ridiculing the statement ... "It could NEVER happen here". Shame ... especially as that ridiculing was done by me. What a difference a few years make. After all the mistakes, all the atrocities by so called British-Muslim-Extremists and all the heroics of the Emergency Forces .. are any of us so certain about what its all about. A human being was executed by the Police in London ..... how tragic is that ..... is it more tragic than having British passport holders trying to destroy the very things that those passports are supposed to represent. If it comes to the much loved British Police being seen as gung-ho, murderous incompetents .. then maybe they've already succeeded.
With apologies to Daisy: A very depressed little Gus
This has nothing to do with hindsight whatsoever. The facts of the situation as stated in an inquiry by the people who were actually there, are now coming out. 2 years after the incident. And they differ dramatically from the original sensationalist media reports.
As for the "fact" that the undercover policeman judged he could have been a suicide bomber who he needed to restrain. Fair enough. But this was an innocent man using public transport, they had NO reason to assume he was anything else - but due to bad communication and bad decisions they shot him. Its in the papers today that he "moved his hands in a not normal way" which is NO justification at all, and an insult to all concerned. How many other people on the tube were "moving their hands in a not normal way" or would have done with armed police running at them? They didn't get shot because THEY weren't subjects of an incompetent police investigation in the first place.
Nice to see a balanced view there
The 'latest' 'fact' is the guy supposedly made a move for the exit when confronted
Moved his hands in a odd way
Never been against a full enquiry and if at a higher level heads should roll so be it
Its this way we love to say
F*** you P** s one day and the next day say , where was the police officer when I was mugged on the way home
The key word was "seen" ... perceptions are a very powerful thing and I don't think the incident has done anything positive for the Police's image. At the end of the day, by their own admission, the suspect should never have been allowed to make it to a populated area if he was thought to be carrying a bomb.
***, how ill-informed are you?
HE DID NOT RUN.
He walked into the station, went down to the platform, probably had to wait for a train, and got on it and sat down. He was not wearing a heavy winter jacket, not carrying a rucksack. The whole disaster was caused by a faulty identification when he originally left his flat, and the failure to deal with the matter in a timely fashion.
What do you suppose led him to 'judge' that JCdM was a suicide bomber? That is the thrust of the investigation/prosecution. There was no evidence to suggest anything of the sort other than the ****-ups committed by the task force of which the person making the statement was one of the spearheads.
To put it another way, if you were in a Northern Line train and a man wearing only a t-shirt and unbuttoned denim jacket, carrying only a copy of Metro, stood up when someone started shouting at him - you'd 'judge that he could be a suicide bomber', would you?
I think that until we are shown footage of the execution and we have a proper explanation for why the wrong man was shot then there will be a lack of confidence in the case.
One thing that i think should be remembered is that a few days afterwards one of the failed terrorists was arrested in Birmingham with the police using a Tazer gun rather than shooting him. Admittedly it is difficult to know whether the terrorist would have had a bomb strapped to him or not (if he had warning then he may have had time to although i think all the bombs were used in the failed attack myself). Therefore the apparent shoot to kill policy was not used in this instance (although it wasnt in a public area so casualties would have been limited). Then again mid-morning trains can be fairly uncrowded, especially on the northern line at stockwell where lots of people change onto the victoria line. Ian Blair wasnt very happy with this tactic
Yasin Hassan Omar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Very true. Apparently armed police were elsewhere anticipating an attack in the rush hour. However, if you think you have someone under surveillance then surely you would have a back-up plan in case they suddenly moved?
I was just thinking about him. Of course he lived, but it was touch and go.
I can't help thinking that I don't really want unthinking automatons with powerful weapons wondering around on our streets prepared to shoot someone seven times in the head simply because they have been given clearance to do so. I would prefer that the people chosen to carry such weapons are a) picked because they are smarter than the average PC, and b) trained to use their own intelligence and experience to evaluate the situation and c) particularly trained to remain calm and collected in pressure situations.
The US doesn't have that - any 18 year old, appointed by an elected sherrif with no experience of law enforcement, can carry a 13-round automatic pistol with bullets that can rip an arm off if someone is hit in the shoulder.
We are supposed to have a specialist section within the police, which means we can take steps to ensure that they are more likely to make the right decisions.
Amongst such 'right decisions' I do not include shooting a man who has a table leg in a carrier bag, shooting a man through the window of his Mini in evening rush hour traffic when it isn't even the right mini, and shooting a man to prevent him from setting off a bomb when there is a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y nothing to suggest he is carrying a bomb.
It's just occurred to me, actually, that this is what I consider to be the kernel of the matter. The justification for the killing was to prevent other deaths; there would have been murder charges if it was thought the shooting was carried out simply because he was suspected in the attempted bombings of - the previous day, wasn't it? The justification was that it was thought that letting him live would have endangered the lives of the other passengers.
So either no-one who had eyeballed JCdM had reported back that it was impossible for him to be carrying an explosive device, or the shooting was authorised by the management team without considering the question.
Wouldn't you, as a simple matter, being in radio contact, have said - "It looks like him, but he has no rucksack, and there's nothing under his jacket except a t-shirt?" Wouldn't you, as a simple matter, have said 'This is Gold to Footsoldier - please describe the subject. Could he be armed? Is there any suggestion he is carrying an IED?"
Or do you think people were going "He's a suicide bomber! He's a suicide bomber! Don't panic! Don't panic, Mr Mainwaring! We have to kill him now!"
Probably somewhere between the two, I suspect, but it should have been cool, calm and collected professional people carefully doing their job to the best of their ability. If not, take their guns away or transfer them to less stressful commands. And take it like a man when health and safety laws (not in place when the poor schmuck with the table leg was killed and Stephen Waldorf was nearly killed) prosecute the service for clear failures.
No, but it's as relevant to someone being raped as someone's immigration status is to being shot 7 times in the head. That is, not at all.
BS's point is that the victim's status here has no bearing on the crime committed against them. JCdM could have been a British passport holder for a decade - it wouldn't have changed what happened that day. Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
In the real world if you walk around naked in Newcastle at 2am and say take me big boy your likely to attract unwanted attention
Its not that their ‘asking for it ‘, it’s the ‘real world’
In the ‘real world’ if Menezes had obeyed the law he would be alive today now back to the fantasy
You do know how ridiculous that sounds don't you ? Try "he turned around with a "beach barbie doll" in a plastic bag..end of" instead, to emphasis the fact that he was shot for carrying a plastic bag.
For your second statement. JCdM would be alive if he obeyed the law ? That makes perfect sense. I can see how having a valid visa would have prevented shots to the head from killing you - no really
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks